Intervening on Trust in Science to Reduce Belief in COVID-19 Misinformation and Increase COVID-19 Preventive Behavioral Intentions: Randomized Controlled Trial

Jon Agley, Yunyu Xiao, Esi E Thompson, Xiwei Chen, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo, Jon Agley, Yunyu Xiao, Esi E Thompson, Xiwei Chen, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo

Abstract

Background: Trust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people's belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic.

Objective: Our study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19.

Methods: This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment.

Results: From January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the "scientific" profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed.

Conclusions: Briefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so.

Trial registration: NCT04557241; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04557241.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/24383.

Keywords: COVID-19; RCT; infodemic; misinformation; randomized controlled trial; trust in science.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Jon Agley, Yunyu Xiao, Esi E Thompson, Xiwei Chen, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.10.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Control infographic.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Intervention infographic.
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trust in science scores and 95% CIs.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Believability of narrative statements by latent profile. Believability scores range from 1 (Extremely unbelievable) to 7 (Extremely believable).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Influence of the intervention on the likelihood of being classified in Profile One, adjusted for age, gender, race, vaccination status, political orientation, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, family behavior, prior diagnosis, prior infection, and pre-intervention trust. OR: odds ratio.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Hypothesized causal pathway of the intervention (not supported), adjusted for age, gender, race, vaccination status, political orientation, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, family behavior, prior diagnosis, prior infection, and pre-intervention trust.

References

    1. Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, Purnat T, D'Agostino M, Garcia-Saiso S, Landry M, Rashidian A, Hamilton C, AbdAllah A, Ghiga I, Hill A, Hougendobler D, van Andel J, Nunn M, Brooks I, Sacco PL, De Domenico M, Mai P, Gruzd A, Alaphilippe A, Briand S. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e19659. doi: 10.2196/19659. v22i6e19659
    1. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: the epidemiology of (mis)information. The American Journal of Medicine. 2002 Dec;113(9):763–765. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01473-0.
    1. Calleja N, AbdAllah A, Abad N, Ahmed N, Albarracin D, Altieri E, Anoko JN, Arcos R, Azlan AA, Bayer J, Bechmann A, Bezbaruah S, Briand SC, Brooks I, Bucci LM, Burzo S, Czerniak C, De Domenico M, Dunn AG, Ecker UKH, Espinosa L, Francois C, Gradon K, Gruzd A, Gülgün BS, Haydarov R, Hurley C, Astuti SI, Ishizumi A, Johnson N, Johnson Restrepo D, Kajimoto M, Koyuncu A, Kulkarni S, Lamichhane J, Lewis R, Mahajan A, Mandil A, McAweeney E, Messer M, Moy W, Ndumbi Ngamala P, Nguyen T, Nunn M, Omer SB, Pagliari C, Patel P, Phuong L, Prybylski D, Rashidian A, Rempel E, Rubinelli S, Sacco P, Schneider A, Shu K, Smith M, Sufehmi H, Tangcharoensathien V, Terry R, Thacker N, Trewinnard T, Turner S, Tworek H, Uakkas S, Vraga E, Wardle C, Wasserman H, Wilhelm E, Würz A, Yau B, Zhou L, Purnat TD. A Public health research agenda for managing infodemics: Methods and results of the first WHO Infodemiology Conference. JMIR Infodemiology. 2021 Sep 15;1(1):e30979. doi: 10.2196/30979. v1i1e30979
    1. Brennen JS, Simon FM, Howard PN, Nielsen RK. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford; 2020. Apr 07, [2021-10-09]. Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. .
    1. Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W, Galeazzi A, Valensise CM, Brugnoli E, Schmidt AL, Zola P, Zollo F, Scala A. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 06;10(1):16598. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5.10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5
    1. Lynas M. COVID: Top 10 current conspiarcy theories. Alliance for Science. 2020. Apr 20, [2021-10-09].
    1. Agley J, Xiao Y. Misinformation about COVID-19: evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science. BMC Public Health. 2021 Jan 07;21(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x. 10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x
    1. Agley J, Xiao Y, Thompson EE, Golzarri-Arroyo L. COVID-19 misinformation prophylaxis: Protocol for a randomized trial of a brief informational intervention. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Dec 7;9(12):e24383. doi: 10.2196/24383.
    1. Enders AM, Uscinski JE, Klofstad C, Stoler J. The different forms of COVID-19 misinformation and their consequences. HKS Misinfo Review. 2020 Nov 12;:1. doi: 10.37016/mr-2020-48.
    1. Sallam M, Dababseh D, Yaseen A, Al-Haidar A, Taim D, Eid H, Ababneh NA, Bakri FG, Mahafzah A. COVID-19 misinformation: Mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243264. PONE-D-20-21682
    1. Greene CM, Murphy G. Quantifying the effects of fake news on behavior: Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2021 Jun 10;:1. doi: 10.1037/xap0000371. doi: 10.1037/xap0000371.2021-55332-001
    1. Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar 05;5(3):337–348. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1.10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1
    1. Mendez R. WHO says Covid misinformation is a major factor driving pandemic around the world. CNBC. 2021. Aug 24, [2021-10-09]. .
    1. Nadelson L, Jorcyk C, Yang D, Jarratt Smith M, Matson S, Cornell K, Husting V. I just don't trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. Sch Sci Math. 2014 Jan 19;114(2):76–86. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12051.
    1. Faulkner P, Simpson T, editors. The philosophy of trust. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2017.
    1. Hardwig J. The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy. 1991 Dec;88(12):693. doi: 10.2307/2027007.
    1. Eikenberry SE, Mancuso M, Iboi E, Phan T, Eikenberry K, Kuang Y, Kostelich E, Gumel AB. To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis Model. 2020;5:293–308. doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2020.04.001. S2468-0427(20)30011-7
    1. Powdthavee N, Riyanto YE, Wong ECL, Yeo JXW, Chan QY. When face masks signal social identity: Explaining the deep face-mask divide during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253195. PONE-D-21-13828
    1. Bennett M. Should I do as I’m told? Trust, experts, and COVID-19. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2020;30(3-4):243–263. doi: 10.1353/ken.2020.0014.
    1. Dohle S, Wingen T, Schreiber M. Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020 Dec 23;15(4):1. doi: 10.32872/spb.4315.
    1. Hromatko I, Tonković M, Vranic A. Trust in science, perceived vulnerability to disease, and adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacological COVID-19 recommendations. Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 30;12:664554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664554.
    1. Plohl N, Musil B. Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: the critical role of trust in science. Psychol Health Med. 2021 Jan 01;26(1):1–12. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988.
    1. Koetke J, Schumann K, Porter T. Trust in science increases conservative support for social distancing. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2021 May 31;24(4):680–697. doi: 10.1177/1368430220985918.
    1. Attwell K, Lake J, Sneddon J, Gerrans P, Blyth C, Lee J. Converting the maybes: Crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy. PLoS One. 2021 Jan 20;16(1):e0245907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245907. PONE-D-20-28455
    1. Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav. 2018 Jan 16;41(1):135–163. doi: 10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y.
    1. Yousuf H, van der Linden S, Bredius L, Ted van Essen GA, Sweep G, Preminger Z, van Gorp E, Scherder E, Narula J, Hofstra L. A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in elderly in the Netherlands: A digital randomised trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 May;35:100881. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100881. S2589-5370(21)00161-9
    1. Pennycook G, Rand DG. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021 May;25(5):388–402. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007. S1364-6613(21)00051-6
    1. Bode L, Vraga EK. Correction experiences on social media during COVID-19. Social Media + Society. 2021 Apr 12;7(2):205630512110088. doi: 10.1177/20563051211008829.
    1. Cook J, Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One. 2017 May 5;12(5):e0175799. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799. PONE-D-16-15763
    1. van der Linden S, Roozenbeek J, Compton J. Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 23;11:566790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790.
    1. Jolley D, Douglas KM. Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017 Jun 28;47(8):459–469. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12453.
    1. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature. 2021 Apr 17;592(7855):590–595. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2.10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
    1. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020 Jul 30;31(7):770–780. doi: 10.1177/0956797620939054.
    1. Basol M, Roozenbeek J, Berriche M, Uenal F, McClanahan WP, Linden SVD. Towards psychological herd immunity: Cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation. Big Data & Society. 2021 May 11;8(1):205395172110138. doi: 10.1177/20539517211013868.
    1. Representative samples on Prolific. Prolific. 2019. Mar 05, [2021-10-09].
    1. Agley J, Xiao Y, Nolan R, Golzarri-Arroyo L. Quality control questions on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk): A randomized trial of impact on the USAUDIT, PHQ-9, and GAD-7. Behav Res Methods. 2021 Aug 06;:1. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01665-8. 10.3758/s13428-021-01665-8
    1. Agley J, Xiao Y, Thompson EE, Golzarri-Arroyo L. Using infographics to improve trust in science: a randomized pilot test. BMC Res Notes. 2021 May 29;14(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05626-4. 10.1186/s13104-021-05626-4
    1. Dhakar L. Lightbox: the original lightbox script. [2021-10-09].
    1. Maxmen A, Mallapaty S. The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know. Nature. 2021 Jun 08;594(7863):313–315. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3.10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3
    1. Kaufman BG, Whitaker R, Mahendraratnam N, Smith VA, McClellan MB. Comparing associations of state reopening strategies with COVID-19 burden. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Dec 06;35(12):3627–3634. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06277-0. 10.1007/s11606-020-06277-0
    1. Cheng VC, Wong S, Chuang VW, So SY, Chen JH, Sridhar S, To KK, Chan JF, Hung IF, Ho P, Yuen K. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):107–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024. S0163-4453(20)30235-8
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. Aug 13, [2021-10-09]. .
    1. Ajzen I. Theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Measurement Instrument Database for Social Science. 2013. [2021-10-09]. .
    1. Agley J, Xiao Y, Thompson E, Golzarri-Arroyo L. Factors associated with reported likelihood to get vaccinated for COVID-19 in a nationally representative US survey. Public Health. 2021 Jul;196:91–94. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.05.009. S0033-3506(21)00189-X
    1. Agley J. Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health. 2020 Jun;183:122–125. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.004. S0033-3506(20)30157-8
    1. Bruine de Bruin W. Age differences in COVID-19 risk perceptions and mental health: Evidence from a national U.S. survey conducted in March 2020. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Jan 18;76(2):e24–e29. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbaa074. 5848594
    1. Yıldırım M, Güler A. COVID-19 severity, self-efficacy, knowledge, preventive behaviors, and mental health in Turkey. Death Stud. 2020 Jul 16;:1–8. doi: 10.1080/07481187.2020.1793434.
    1. Chambon M, Dalege J, Elberse JE, van Harreveld F. A psychological network approach to attitudes and preventive behaviors during pandemics: A COVID-19 study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2021 Mar 23;:194855062110024. doi: 10.31234/. doi: 10.1177/19485506211002420.
    1. Sturgis P, Brunton-Smith I, Jackson J. Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 May 17;:1. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01115-7. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01115-7.10.1038/s41562-021-01115-7
    1. Agler R, De Boeck P. On the interpretation and use of mediation: Multiple perspectives on mediation analysis. Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 15;8:1984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01984.
    1. Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R. Causality and endogeneity: problems and solutions. In: Day DV, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 93–117.
    1. Stone SI, Rose RA. Social Work Research and Endogeneity Bias. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2011 Jan;2(2):54–75. doi: 10.5243/jsswr.2011.3.
    1. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002.
    1. Byers P. Increased poison control calls due to ivermectin ingestion and potential toxicity. Mississippi State Department of Health. 2021. Aug 20, [2021-10-09]. .
    1. Kelly MP, Barker M. Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult? Public Health. 2016 Jul;136:109–16. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2016.03.030. S0033-3506(16)30017-8

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever